vehicle aggressivity: fleet characterization using traffic collision data PDF
Preview vehicle aggressivity: fleet characterization using traffic collision data
U.S. Department Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DOT HS 808 679 Final Report DOT-VNTSC-NHTSA-98-1 February 1998 Vehicle Aggressivity: Fleet Characterization Using Traffic Collision Data Hans Joksch Dawn Massie Robert Pichler The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 2901 Baxter Road Ann Arbor, MI 481 09-2150 This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 221 61 This document is disseminated under the sponsorship sf the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. es Government assumes no liability for its contents or The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OM5 NO. 0:704-0188 Puolic repon ~g bkrden 'or tn s co lecilon of information 1s est marea to average 1 nour per response,, ,nciuaing me t me for rev ew~ig~ nsrructionss,e arcnin existing aata soJrces, ga:her rg ano rnalntalnin tie data needeo. ana complelng ano review ng rec o leer on of informat on Seno commenlr regard ng tvr D,iraen eimaie or any o:ner aspect of tn s coecr on of n!oro.malion, inc~roin rig eslions for redrclng Ins b~roent.o Wasn,n$sn Headg~artersS ervices. Direcmiare for lnforrnar on O~eratons and Repons. 1215 "efferson Dav.s H grway Sli re 1!04, lrI ngron,V A 22202.4302, and lo Ine Off ce of Managemen: an0 B~agerP, aperrvorlc Rea~cotn Pro,ecr (070L- 0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1 -- - 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REiPORT DATE 3 REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED PB98-118094 February 1998 1 Final Report (Sep. 1995 - Sep. 1997) 1I 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Vehicle Aggressivity: Fleet Characterization Using Traffic Collision Data S8010/HS876 Hans C. Joksch, Dawn Massie, and Robert Pichler 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION I The University of Michigan* REPORT NUMElER Transportation Research Institute 2901 ~axteRr oad Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2150 I 9. SPONSORING/MONI'TORING AGENCY NAME@) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORIN(3/MONITORING U.S. Department of Transportation AGENCY REPORT NUMBER National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Safety Systems Engineering and Analysis Division 400 7 street, S.W. DOT HS 808; 679 Washington, DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES *Under contract to: U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 021 42-1093 l2a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABlLlTY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) Aggressivity of a vehicle is defined as the fatality or injury risk for occupants of other vehicles with which it collides. Because of the strong effect vehicle weight has on this risk, gross aggressivity which includes the effect of weight, and net aggressivity which excludes the effect of weight are distinguished. Data from the Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the General Estimates System (GES) for 1991 to 1994 were used for fatalities, and for crash involvements, respectively. The relation between weight and wheelbase of cars was studied, and the concept of "overweight" introduced. For collisions between two cars, the relation of fatality risks with car weight, overweight, wheelbase and bumper height were studied. Also, adjustments were made for the higher vulnerability of older victims. Collisions between cars and light trucks - including utility vehicles, pickup trucks and vans - were studied. A limited analysis of the effect of vehicle weight was performed. The driver fatality risks in collisions between cars and light trucks were studied by collision configuration. In all cases, the risk for car drivers was much higher than for drivers of light trucks. 1 I 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER1- 1 I fatalities, injury risk, cars, trucks, vans, vehicle weight, wheelbase 82 Paper: A08; Fiche: A02 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18.S ECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI ~td2.3 9-18 298-10 2 METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) 1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in) 1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in) 1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3f eet (ft) 1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1 .l yards (yd) 1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi) AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE) 1 square inch (sq in, inz) = 6.5s quare centimeters (cmz) 1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, inz) 1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (mz) = 1.2s quare yards (sq yd, ydz) 1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8s quare meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4s quare mile (sq mi, miz) 1 square mile (sq mi, miz) = 2.6 square kilometers (km2) 10,000s quare meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres 1 acre = 0.4h ectare (ha) = 4,000s quare meters (mz) - - MASS WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) 1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036o unce (oz) 1 pound (Ib) = .45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (Ib) 1 short ton = 2,000p ounds (Ib) = 0.9t onne (t) 1 tonne (t) = 1,000k ilograms (kg) = 1.1 short tons VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) 1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03f luid ounce (fl oz) 1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (I) = 2.1 pints (pt) 1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (I) = 1.06 quarts (qt) 1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (I) 1 liter (I) = 0.26 gallon (gal) 1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (I) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3) 1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (I) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3c ubic yards (cu yd, yd3) 1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (I) 1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT) "C=5/9("F - 32) "F=9/5("C) + 32 QUICK INCH-CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION INCHES 0 1 2 3 4 5 I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 ' i I 1 I 1 CENTIMETERS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 QUICK FAHRENHEIT-CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION "F -40" -22" -4" 14" 32" 50" 68" 86" 104" 122" 140" 158" 176' 194" 212" "C -40" -30" -20" -10" 0" 10" 20" 30" 40" 50" 60" 70" 80" 90" 100" For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NlST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and Measures. Price $2.50.S D Catalog No. C13 10286. Updated 8/1/96 This report contains the results of a study to evaluate the crashworthiness and aggressivity of cars and light trucks. Data from the Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the General Estimates System (GES) for 1991 to 1994 were used for fatalities and for crash involvements, respectively. This work was performed by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute under contract to the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in support of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's program on Vehicle Aggressivity and Fleet Compatibility. TABLE OF CONTENTS . Section Page Executive Summary ES1- 1 ....................................................................................................... . 1 Introduction 1 2 . Databases ..........................................................................................................3 3 . The concept of aggressivity ............................................................................... 7 4 . Confounding factors ........................................................................................ 9 . .................................................................................... 5 Vehicle weight and size 11 .................................................................... 5.1 The effect of vehicle weight 11 ................................................................................................ 5.2 Vehicle size 14 ......................................... 5.3 The relation between car weight and wheelbase 15 ... 5.4 Risk to car occupants in collisions with cars ..................... ................ 17 ......................... 5.5 Risk to car occupants in single-car collisions and rollover 22 6 . Classifying cars ............................ .. ..............................................................2 6 6.1 Purpose of classifying cars ........................................................................2. 6 ..... .. .......................................... 6.2 Attempts at statistical classifications 27 . . ............................................................................ 6.3 Developing car famllles 28 . ............................................................................. 7 Comparing families of cars 30 7.1 Risks by family ......................................................................................... 30 .......................... . .................. 7.2 Relations between different types of risks 40 ...................................................... 7.3 Relating risks to weight and wheelbase 43 ................................................................. 7.4 Aggressivity and bumper height 51 . ......................................................... 8 Collisions between cars and light trucks 53 ............................................. 8.1 Some practical difficulties with light trucks 53 ...................................... 8.2 Aggressivity of light trucks in relation to weight 53 ........ 8.3 Aggressivity & crashworthiness of light trucks in relation to car size 56 ............................... 8.4 Aggressivity of light trucks by collision configuration 58 8.5 Age adjusted comparisons ......................................................................... 58 9 . Conclusions ......................................................................................................6. 2 APPENDICES . ....................................................................... A The smoothing technique used 65 B . Car families .................................................................................................... 66 ... Vlll LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 2-1 Availability of information on makelmodel for cars selected from the 1994 .......................................................................................................... GES file 5 2-2 Logic of obtaining FARSIGES model codes from GES cases with VINA model code ........................................................................ 6 .................................................... 4-1 Car driver fatality risk in a collision by age 10 5-1 Ratio of car driver fatalities in collisions between two cars, by weight ............................................................................................... ratio of the cars 12 5-2 Ratio of car driver fatalities in collisions between two cars, by weight ............... . ............................ ratio of the cars and speed limit 13 5-3 Ratio of car driver fatality risk in front-front, front-left, and front-right ................................. collisions between two cars, by weight ratio of the cars 14 5-4 Distributions of cars involved in the studied collisions by weight and wheelbase .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . 16 ,, , 5-5 Relation between average car weight for each wheelbase class, and wheelbase .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. .... . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . 16 , , ,, , , , , , .................. 5-6 Car driver fatality rate in collisions with other cars by wheelbase 17 5-7 Car driver fatality rate in collisions with other cars by wheelbase of the .. .................................. . . . . othercar 18 5-8 Car driver fatality rate in collisions with other cars by wheelbase and ................................................................. overweight of his car 18 5-9 Car driver fatality rate per involved driver, in collisions with other cars, by ................................................. wheelbase and overweight of the other car 19 5-10 Car driver fatality rate, per involved driver, in collisions with other cars, .................................................. by wheelbase and weight of the car 20 5-1 1 Car driver fatality rate, in collisions with other cars, by wheelbase and weight of the other car ....................... ............. .................................. 21 5-12 Car driver fatality rate, in single car collisions, by wheelbase ........................ 23 5-13 Car driver fatality rate, in single car collisions, by wheelbase and ...................................................................................... overweight of the car 24 5-14 Car driver fatality rate, in single car collisions, by wheelbase and weight of the car .................................................................................................... 25 7-la Fatality risk to other car drivers ("riskby") in collisions with cars belonging to the largest car families ................ ...... . ............... . .. ...... 3 1 Fatality risk to other car drivers (riskby") in collisions with cars belonging to the largest car families adjusted for the victim's ages ................................ 3 1 Fatality risk to drivers of cars of the largest car families ("riskin") in ..................... . ..................................................... collisions with other cars 32 Fatality risk to drivers of cars of the largest car families ("riskin") in ................................ collisions with other cars, adjusted for the victim's ages 32 Fatality risk for drivers of cars of the largest car families in single car ........................................................................................ collisions ("risk1 ") 33 Fatality risk for drivers of cars of the largest car families in single car .................... ... ........... collisions ("riskl"), adjusted for the victim's ages 33 Fatality risk to other car drivers ("riskby") in collisions with cars ................................................. belonging to the medium size car families 34 Fatality risk to other car drivers ("riskby") in collisions with cars ...... belonging to the medium size car families adjusted for the victim's ages 35 Fatality risk to drivers of cars of the medium size car families ("riskin") in ............................................................. ................ collisions with other cars 36 Fatality risk to drivers of cars of the medium size car families ("riskin") in ............................. collisions with other cars, adjusted for the victim's ages 37 Fatality risk for drivers of cars of the medium size car families in single car collisions ("risk1 "). .......... ................................................................... 38 Fatality risk for drivers of cars of the medium size car families in single car collisions ("riskl"), adjusted for the victim's ages ................................... 39 Fatality risk of a car driver being killed in a single car collision versus the risk of being killed in a collision with another car .......................................... 41 Fatality risk of a car driver in collisions with cars of certain families versus the fatality risk of drivers of cars of these families in collisions .. .................... .............................................................................. with cars 42 Fatality risk for drivers of cars, in single vehicle collisions versus average ............................................................................................................. weight 44 Fatality risk for drivers of cars in collisions with other cars, versus average ............................................................................................................. weight 46 Fatality risk of car driver in collisions with other cars, by average weight ... ......................... ................................... of cars in the other car's family 47 Fatality risk for drivers of cars of certain families, in collisions with other cars, versus average of the ratios of the weights of the two cars ..................... 49 Fatality risks for car drivers in collisions with cars of certain families, versus the average of the ratios of the weights of the two cars ....................... 50 Car driver fatality risk in collisions with another car, by the other car's ............................................................................. bumper height and weight 52 Collisions between two cars, and between a car and a light truck .................. 55
Description:The list of books you might like
